coordinates a diverse group of hackers targeting websites worldwide in the name of Islam.

Logging on to his computer, he greets his Facebook followers with a "good morning all" in English before posting links to 746 websites they have hacked in the last 48 hours along with his digital calling card: a half-skull, half-cyborg Guy Fawkes mask.

He calls himself Mauritania Attacker, after the remote Islamic republic in west Africa from which he leads a youthful group scattered across the Maghreb, southeast Asia and the West.

As jihadists battle regional governments from the deserts of southern Algeria to the scrubland of north Nigeria, Mauritania Attacker says the hacking collective which he founded, AnonGhost, is fighting for Islam using peaceful means.

"We're not extremists," he said, via a Facebook account which a cyber security expert identified as his. "AnonGhost is a team that hacks for a cause. We defend the dignity of Muslims."...

In April, AnonGhost launched a cyber attack dubbed OpIsrael that disrupted access to several Israeli government websites, attracting the attention of security experts worldwide.

"AnonGhost is considered one of the most active groups of hacktivists of the first quarter of 2013," said Pierluigi Paganini, security analyst and editor of Cyber Defense magazine.

"Today Islam is divisive and corrupt," he said in an online exchange. "We have abandoned the Koran."

Mauritanian Attacker aims to promote "correct Islam" by striking at servers hosted by countries they see as hostile to sharia law. "There is no Islam without sharia," he said.

Mauritania is renowned for its strict Islamic law. The sale of alcohol is forbidden and it is one of only a handful of states where homosexuality and atheism are punished by death.

The quality of Mauritania's religious scholars and koranic schools, or madrassas, attract students from around the world. Mauritanians have risen to prominent positions in regional jihadist groups, including al Qaeda's north African branch AQIM.

As hackers from the region organize into groups, the Maghreb is emerging as a haven for hacktivism as it lacks the laws and means to prosecute cyber criminals, Herberger said...

AnonGhost's global reach is its greatest weapon, but it has yet to stage a major attack on a Western economic target.

Most of AnonGhost's campaigns have simply defaced Web sites, ranging from kosher dieting sites to American weapon aficionado blogs, with messages about Islam and anti-Zionism.

It has attacked servers, often hosting small business websites, located in the United States, Brazil, France, Israel and Germany among others.

Mauritania Attacker and the AnonGhost crew say these countries have "betrayed Muslims" by supporting Israel and by participating in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We are the new generation of Muslims and we are not stupid," read a message posted on the Web site of a party supply business in Italy. "We represent Islam. We fight together. We stand together. We die together."

The team has also leaked email credentials, some belonging to government workers from the United States and elsewhere.

As part of a June 20 operation against the oil industry, carried out alongside the international hacking network Anonymous, Mauritania Attacker released what he said were the email addresses and passwords for employees of Total.

A busker, a saxophone-playing girl performing the blues song "Minnie the Moocher" outside the Summerfest in Milwaukee, in the US, was physically attacked by three black women saying that a white girl could not play that song.

They punched her in the side of the face and left her bruised.

"Two women, 14- and 24-years-old, were cited for disorderly conduct. A 41-year-old woman was cited for assault and battery and disorderly conduct."

No mention of "hate crime" or racism as an aggravating factor, as would have been the case if the three white women had attacked a black girl.

We have just seen the umpteenth example of "“judicial imperialism”, by which unelected judges through their verdicts supersede laws passed by elected representatives of the people".

Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California, was passed in November 2008 after the California state elections in which 52.24% of the electorate voted in its favour.

So, here we are in the presence of legislation approved not by the elected representatives of the people but, more than that, by the people themselves.

Two homosexual couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Jeff Katami and Paul Zarrillo, after being denied a marriage licence in California sued to overturn the ban.

Finally, after a lengthy process, Proposition 8 was repealed on 28 June 2013 by court ruling.

The subversion of the popular will by judicial activism is increasing and increasingly worrying, and the so-called "gay rights", a euphemism for the phenomenon of a vociferous and culturally powerful minority taking a morally confused, scared majority - scared of being called "bigot, homophobic" - hostage and imposing its will on the rest of the population, is one of the stages where judicial overreach is played most often, not just in America.

George W Bush, who in comparison to Obama is a first-class statesman whom now Americans have started missing, said about same-sex marriage:

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The founders of our republic set up a carefully nuanced set of checks and balances, but the last couple of generations of Americans have allowed nine unelected old men and women to seize control of a vast array of deeply contentionous social and cultural issues of national import knowing that they are immune from being held accountable for their decisions. Our judges now use the law to impose elite opinion about how society should be ordered regardless of the democratic will. We have become courtroom spectators rather than participants in the democratic process. It is as the famed First Things symposium put it, The End of Democracy.

The lobby for same-sex marriage may have made a serious error of judgement in choosing to make this particular law in this particular state a test case. It is a mistake because, in this instance, they are not trying to reverse some local statute of years’ standing, but to negate the majority will of their fellow citizens, recently expressed at the ballot box. It puts the ultra-liberal lobby squarely in confrontation with the defining act of the democratic process: the secret ballot of a universal suffrage electorate.

It also seeks to subvert states’ rights, the issue on which the American Civil War was fought and which is increasingly coming back into focus, as the culture of the liberal east coast relentlessly attempts to override the core values of the more conservative states. Obama’s healthcare legislation is another issue that has lately reinvigorated that antagonism. Modern history and politics are full of startling examples of old fault lines suddenly reopening: who, 50 years ago, would have forecast, for example, that Yugoslavia would fragment so violently? America’s so-called “culture wars” reflect internal tensions and divisions against which the fabric of federal unity may not be indefinitely immune.

Yet the increasing marginalisation of voters’ powers goes far beyond the United States. A referendum result such as Proposition 8, if voted through in Europe, would simply have been negated by the EU, forcing the offending electorate to think again. The major political phenomenon of our times is the increasingly debilitated condition of democracy.

It is interesting to see how the socio-communists, who pretend to be for democracy and freedom, can suddenly reveal their true, historical colours of totalitarianism, whether achieved by revolutionary or, as in this case, judiciary means.

A commenter to the above Gerald Warner post summed it up nicely: "When the lib'rel/progressives don't get what they want, they go to the bench to get things their way".

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

The above video is a Channel 4 (UK TV network) documentary aired some time ago but just posted on YouTube, showing how even those who are considered "moderate" Muslims have for all intents and purposes very non-moderate views, like advocating punishment - in some cases beheading - for those who insult Islam.

Reporter Jon Snow concludes - what a surprise! - that there is no common ground between them and our Western values, like freedom of speech. Therefore, he says, we must self-censor or expect mayhem.

There is a third possibility, Jon: Muslims living in Muslim countries and leaving the Western world alone.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

We don't know enough of what's going on in South Africa. The media don't inform us because what happens there is exactly the opposite of what they want us to believe and Hollywood films portray: blacks are nice and victims, whites are horrible and perpetrators (even criminal statistics in the West, where black-on-white violence is much more frequent than white-on-black violence, can easily disprove that).

Songs and chants of "Kill the whites" by vast crowds in their native languages need to be translated, as they have been in these videos, before we can grasp the situation.

And here below are the effects.

Nelson Mandela, incredibly lionized when he was in fact responsible for commissioning terrorist acts at the time of the apartheid, is among those chanting these appallingly racist words.

When did he [Mandela] become the messiah? It really irritates me. How many people are just bowing down to the man because the world's media is making him out to be the Savior of all people?

Truth is, the WHITES in South Africa voted to abolish Apartheid. The old terrorist was IN JAIL. HE didn't end Apartheid. In fact, he did very little to end it. He was chosen as a figurehead by the media, big business and the Nats.

These people are communist and don't know the meaning of the word "peace", let alone "tolerance".

In addition to the genocidal violence against whites, the latter have to face particularly bad economic hardship due to "reverse discrimination": reverse it as much as you like, it is still discrimination.

"Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter "Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent" for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways "to make paedophilia acceptable".

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (spelling BOY), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the now-disbanded Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that that the age of sexual consent is "Re-inforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era".

He was not on his own in this crusade, far from it. Many of his comrades, socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same (emphasis mine):

Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who "related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six".

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalising and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist of the "Kill the Pope" brigade Richard Dawkins but it's not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is "There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: "The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write."

Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell's protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Our "gay" friend's self-defence begins with:

"Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes."

Bad start, Pete. These are blatant falsities. It wasn't "many" Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies about the Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone; people like Tatchell and his pals/comrades in the mainstream media think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it's true.

But blaming the Church whenever you're in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own, shall we say, deviations from the norm. It's worked so far, our friend thinks, so why shouldn't it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there's more.

My 1997 Guardian letter about the book, Dares to Speak, gives the wrong impression. It was edited...

Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.

Leaving aside the irony, probably lost on humourless Tatchell, about his using a "former editor of a Catholic newspaper" as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers, the book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was tactfully removed, this was Wikipedia's entry for the publication (emphasis mine):

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.

After the normalization of homosexuality, we'll have the normalization of paedophilia. Get over it.

Added on 8 December 2013. In fairness to Peter Tatchell, he has politely asked me to add that his real views on age of consent, in particular his four criteria of any change in the age of consent laws, are here:

Sunday, 16 June 2013

The amendment's sponsor, Rep. John Fleming, R-La., says that it would require “the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.”

Fleming points to evidence that Christian service members and chaplains are being penalized for expressing their faith. Examples:
•The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.

•A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.

•A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.

•A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

The Obama administration evidently thinks it important that such actions continue to be taken.

There’s a tension between this policy–arguably suppressing expressions of Christian faith–with the White House’s assurance, according to Investor’s Business Daily, that FBI surveillance not including any investigation of mosques.

So, it appears, Christian religious expression must be suppressed, while Muslim religious expression cannot even be monitored. Yes, government can appropriately limit the conduct of members of the military in ways that would be inappropriate in the case of civilians. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction between these policies. And perhaps there’s a need to restrict servicemembers from offending colleagues in a way that would not be appropriate outside the military (and is not on college campuses, where it often occurs). But it sure looks like a double standard to me: Christianity, bad; Islam, good. I seem to remember, from some ancient reading, the phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But we know that Obama is Islamophile. Some of his politics, like helping the Islamist ethnic cleansing of Christians in Syria, would otherwise be difficult to explain.

About Iraq, he inherited it from Bush. About Egypt and Lybia, you can say that he gambled, not exactly knowing what was going on.

Christian College Expels Lesbian, Bills Her $6,000 to Recoup Loans Because She Didn’t Finish Semester.

What I like most about this article are the comments:

1. I guess she should have followed the rules. Lady Gaga or somebody will pay her debt no doubt. She will get a degree from some other school and be done with it.

2. There is no one so blind as those who will not see.

In a liar’s universe, there is no truth.
Professing to change her behavior to meet the school’s minimum requirements and then taking, and living with a same sex spouse in an out of state union is deceitful.

How can anyone purportedly intelligent enough to earn a scholarship not be intelligent enough to understand a few simple rules?… Oh yeah, that’s right, she has the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Hussein Obama Jr., the worst ever president of the United States, for an example of how to live an honest life.

Never trust the MSM.

3. Hmm lets see, she applied to a conservative school likely under affirmative action rules due to title IV requirements. She more than likely used her race to advance her qualifications over other more qualified, Asian, Native American, Eskimo, and White Competitors. Then while she was reciving her free education she proceeded to violate the schools code of conduct, and more than likely was promoting homosexuality on campus, through the internet and social circles. Imagine if a White Male was given grants and scholarships to a traditionally black college, and then promoted the KKK in the local community, it would be no less vile and offensive. Liberals only like morals so long as they are working in their benefit.

4. Everyone here gets it. This is a homosexual version of Sandra “Professional Student” Fluke. These people get in there specifically to disrupt and discredit an organization, then get them to bend to some agenda. Ms. Powell and her “spouse” are prime examples. Then, on cue, the trolls (in this case, atheists} come out and start smearing “so called Christians” with stuff like “if God existed, he/she would not be so intolerant”. Really? Read the Bible sometime. God is VERY intolerant of rebellion against His will. He is long suffering, but has limits.

5. gee if the 35,000people had only given/sent her 1.00 dollar each..then the poor disinfranchised woman would have her bill paid..but seeing she is laying the professional victim card…she didn’t stop and consider that..did she ?

6. “I shouldn’t have this debt hanging over my head “…..meet the next Housing Crisis brought to you by the same group that brought the original housing crisis : Democrats playing the Discrimination Card to enable people to avoid their financial responsibilities. The Democrats are now trying to use the student loan obligations to torpedo the economy by encouraging irresponsible behavior on the debtor end. This individual owes the school for services rendered which she voluntarily agreed to. Grow up. Pay up. And shut up, girl.

7. What an evil world we live in. Political correctness (LIES) and lack of personal responsibility rule. I’m sure Grace College is private and this lesbian was not forced to go there and she must have volunteeringly signed an oath to abide by the college’s rules. But that doesn’t matter anymore does it? It’s all about selfishness anymore, right? Barf! America is such a disgusting country. And now watch, Grace College will be vilified and the lesbian will be the victim. Right is called wrong and wrong is called right.

8. America is not a disgusting country.
America is a beautiful country.
But there are certainly some vile disgusting cretins who will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately this PC BS has been crammed down our throats for so long now the haters think they have the right to demand that they be not just tolerated but celebrated.

9. What she isn’t telling the media is that a school in Illinois agreed to take her in as a student AND agreed to pay off her debt to Grace University because they support her lifestyle. She also isn’t telling the national media that the University President on a local radio station (with her on the line) agreed openly and publicly to give her any transcript that she needed to move on. She promptly replied that the situation still has “other options” and hung up the phone. Check with KFAB in Omaha for the details. She is another one in a generation of childish adults who think the world should cater to their every desire and lust.

10. There is a limited time period one can drop classes and not have to pay for those classes. She knew the rules, she broke the rules, had to leave the school before the semester was finished, payment is her responsibility.

11. She knew the rules when she applied to the university or shortly after acceptance. Behavior has consequences and she made an informed choice to violate the schools rules of conduct. If she wanted a non-Christian education and lax honor code she should have attended a different school.

12. this was no accident…this has been used on americans and Christians for decades…devide and rule anyway possible..she didn’t just suddenly think she was gay and she knew what kind of school she was at…this was a planned attack. wake up america

13. Here we go again.
Homosexuals only go to this places to destroy Christianity.
If you don’t agree with the rules GO ELSE WHERE!
Let your money and participation show your ideology.
Personally, I am a live and let live Conservative.
I do not judge other’s actions, UNLESS they directly involve me and mine.
If you are a Homosexual, BE ONE, but don’t try to force me to participate in any manner. I WON’T.
They CAN’T do that, they CAN’T leave well enough alone, their mental problems won’t let them. so they have lost my heart, mind, and financial support.
If you want an abortion, HAVE ONE, but don’t make me pay for YOURS, nor your birth control.
The pro Abortionist have lost my heart, mind, and financial support.
Leave RELIGIOUS based schools, businesses, churches, and organizations (BSA) ALONE!
There are plenty that don’t care, so WHY go after the ones that do, a SMALL %.
But, the hate filled knuckle heads JUST CAN’T do it.
This is all becoming an issue for normal people BECAUSE it’s being forced down our throats.
Things are about to change, and not in a good way for these insane dolts.
Watch and see. Pass the popcorn.

14. heathen, that’s a straw man. And you know it.
Too many other options out there than be all whiny because the school, organization, business, or church doesn’t agree with your lifestyle. But no, YOU have to force your crap on everyone else when just using other options would suffice.
This is about to become a big issue in America. CHRISTIANS are waking up., and that’s who you mean, don’t deny it. You darn sure won’t put Islam in that category, and they KILL you for not being Islamic.
God nor Christ never said to not defend you and yours. NEVER.
Watch and see lil’ buddy, watch and see.

15. Here we have another case where another homosexual person lies or deceives their religious employer/school to either stay employed or to continue to receive payments and or academic credentials.

A religious school has first amendment rights to protect their faith from non religious violations.

Just like with the kaitylun hunt cultists, the gay left just wants to glom on to this story and make it about homosexual civil rights (civil privileges actually) when its really about constitutional religious rights.

Marcum, a 14-year-old-boy from West Virginia got into an argument with a teacher for wearing his NRA (National Rifle Association) T-shirt with the image of a firearm and the words “Protect Your Right” printed on it at his school.

He was arrested for disturbing the education process and for obstructing an officer — the latter, according to court documents, because Marcum refused to stop talking, thus hindering the arresting officer from doing his job.

Marcum was suspended from school, after which he returned to class wearing the exact same shirt, as did other students in a show of solidarity.

WOWK-TV reported Jared Marcum saying he never thought there would be a problem with his pro-Second Amendment apparel.

“I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this. There shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Marcum told WOWK-TV.

Police confirmed that Marcum had been arrested and faced charges of obstruction and disturbing the education process after getting into an argument over the shirt with a teacher at Logan Middle School, which is south of Charleston.

Logan Middle School’s policy regarding dress states:

"A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions."

The student’s father, Allen Lardieri, told WOWK that the shirt didn’t violate this policy, nor did his son become aggressive when confronted about it.

“I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again,” Lardieri said.

It doesn't sound like Marcum's shirt violated the school's policy. It looks more like the school and police violated Marcum's right to free expression.

Friday, 14 June 2013

The Huffington Post, that wonderful Leftist outlet, has shown how hate-free it is by posting the video of a spoof made in response to negative comments for the Cheerios advertisement featuring a mixed-race couple and their daughter.

The ad "generated such a strong racist backlash on YouTube that the comments section had to be closed", laments the staunch guardian of morality and enemy of all hatred HuffPo.

Pity that, under the "Most Popular" column (screenshot above), just below the video response to reprehensible haters, there is a photo labelled "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Jesus".

Of course, offending the world's 2.18 billion Christians (a third of the global population - an astonishing figure, considering how much they are persecuted and killed for their religion in Asia and Africa, and discriminated against in the "developed", soon to revert to underdeveloped, world) for no good reason, not, say, involuntarily in the course of a well-argued discussion with the intention of making some valid points but just for the - quite appropriately - hell of it, to make fun at their beliefs without provocation or motive is OK. But maybe there is a motive: could it be, wait for it, hate?

Since the similarity, in this case, is evidently very much in the eye of the beholder, why did The Huffington Post not find or invent another likelihood?

If the photo had been "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Martin Luther King", would HuffPo, which knows everything about questions of ethics, first of all bigotry and racism, have considered it offensive to the black civil rights movement and not published it?

And what about a photo "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Muhammad"?

That is out of the question. In primis, the HuffPo staff value their lives and limbs more than moral and political integrity and avoidance of double standards and, unlike Christians, Muslims don't take insults gracefully and, what's more important for the HuffPo personnel's incolumity, peacefully, as we've had myriad opportunities to see during the last, well, 1,400 years.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

If I say "Catholic Church", does the idea of sexual child abuse instinctively form in your mind more often, or more intensely, than if I say "BBC"?

If so, why do you think that is?

Do you instinctively associate the Catholic Church with sexual child abuse? And do you immediately associate the BBC with sexual child abuse?

If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second, why do you think that is?

Because these kinds of associations are created, or not created, as the case may be, in the minds of people by the mainstream media, which are for hours every day talking and showing images inside people's living rooms, being read by commuters on trains or buses, listened to by people in their cars. One of these media, indeed a very prominent one, in fact the world's largest broadcast news organisation, is the BBC itself, which has been found out to be involved in the cover-up of extensive and prolonged children sex abuse in its midst.

I haven't seen Richard Dawkins or Peter Tatchell demanding the arrest of BBC heads. Is it perhaps because they don't give a fig about child abuse half as much as they care about attacking the Church under any pretext (true or false it doesn't matter)?

Peter Hitchens, at the time when these nutcakes who included his own brother Christopher Hitchens, fundamentalist atheists that we call "professor" and militant homosexual activists that declare to be "human-rights advocates" called for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:

But the Vatican doesn’t actually tell its priests to abuse children. The vast majority of them do not so do. And it has tried to stamp out the problem and to offer genuine apologies to the victims.

I (as a non-Roman Catholic) have examined some of the main charges levelled against Benedict XVI by his attackers, and found that several of them are simply untrue, whereas others have been crudely distorted.

I have also examined the record of one of the main critics of the Papal visit. This is Peter Tatchell, prominent in the ‘Protest the Pope’ campaign.

...But this does not cancel out what I believe is the hypocrisy of his attempt – and that of the Left in general – to wage war on the Pope by employing the charge of condoning or failing to act against paedophilia (it is No 5 in the charge-sheet set out by ‘Protest the Pope’).

For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored.

Tatchell defends under-age sex in his own website too, and advocates the removal of age of consent. He claims: "Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

In this, he is in good company: his comrades of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) want the same, so much so that Wikipedia is having a discussion about listing the entry for the CPGB in the Pedophile Organizations category.

The first is that those who are and have been most vociferous and aggressive in their condemnation of the Catholic Church over the abuse episode, starting from the BBC and finishing with Peter Tatchell, have done so not for the sake of children's welfare but for their own political goals, in which the destruction of the Church, Christianity and indeed the sense of decency and morality are central. This is evident from their hypocrisy on the matter.

The second point, which will now be demonstrated by studies and statistical evidence, is that paedophilia is rampant in this day and age NOT because of the Church and the sexual ethics of self-restraint it believes in, BUT exactly because of the opposite, because Christian and in particular Catholic values in the sexual sphere have been eroded, and children are those who are paying the greatest price, not just due to the increase in the incidence of paedophilia cases, but also due to the breaking-up of families and progressive destruction of the institution of marriage.

Here I'll introduce to you the Canadian author and broadcaster Michael Coren and his book Why Catholics Are Right (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) , from which I will quote, since he has made an extensive, thorough and accurate research which should be read by anyone who has even the slightest urge to make pronouncements on this subject.

From page 12 and following [all emphases added]:

The rates of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church were in the past exactly the same as those in other Christian Churches and within other faith communities, though they may well be lower now. More than this, they were on a par with the abuse rates within any institution involving a power ratio between adult and young person, such as education, sports teams, and so on. All these incidents are deeply tragic. But to single one of these bodies out for particular venom seems strange. Of course, the Church speaks with a moral authority not claimed by a sports club or a school, so in this regard it is right that the Church should be particularly exposed, but the condemnation went much further than justified criticism and became dishonest, libellous, and hysterical. Horrible as it is to contemplate, the most dangerous place for a young person with regard to sexual abuse is the family, often with young women being abused by stepfathers or stepbrothers. Today the Catholic Church is probably the safest place for a young boy or girl because of what the Church has done to make it so. This is in no way to adopt the odious "it's not just us" approach but to show that abuse is not peculiar to the Church and says nothing specific about Catholicism.

If we look at the situation in the United States within other religious groups and various secular bodies, we see a revealing if disturbing picture, and the United States is entirely typical of the international experience. In Protestant circles, for example, a 1984 survey showed that 38.6 per cent of ministers reported some sort of sexual contact with a member of the Church and 76 per cent claimed to know of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with someone who attended the Church. Nor is this confined to one particular branch of the Protestant Church but seems to pervade liberal, mainstream, and orthodox denominations. The highly respected Fuller Seminary conducted an extensive survey of 1,200 ministers and concluded that 20 per cent of conservative pastors admitted to a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a member of the Church, with the figure doubling to an extraordinary 40 per cent for self-identified moderate ministers - the numbers rise to a staggering 50 per cent for so-called liberals. How much of this behaviour concerns minors is uncertain but the number is likely to be relatively low. Professor Philip Jenkins estimates that between 2 and 3 per cent of Protestant clergy have abused minors, but he puts the figure for Catholic priests at less than 2 per cent. Jenkins, remember, is a former Catholic who is now an Anglican and is far from being a Roman Catholic apologist. In 2002, the Christian Science Monitor, not a particular friend or supporter of Catholicism, reported on the results of national surveys conducted by an organization called Christian Ministry Resources and stated that, "despite headlines focusing on the priest paedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American Churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but Church volunteers".

Beyond the Christian faith, Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, professor of law and ethics at Loyola Marymount University, believes that sexual abuse among rabbis within organized Judaism is roughly the same as that found within Protestant clergy. "Sadly," says Rabbi Schaefer, "our community's reactions up to this point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do damage control. Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break ranks by speaking out." In the field of education, the American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls and one in eight boys were sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. In the city of New York alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day! in 1994, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft conducted a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City and found that although every one of the accused admitted to sexual abuse of a student, not one of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 per cent of the abusers lost their licence to teach.

In 2001, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System developed by the Children's Bureau in the United States found that approximately 903,000 children were victims of maltreatment, and 10 per cent of them (or a little more than 90,000) were sexually abused. It also found that 59 per cent of the perpetrators of child abuse or neglect were women and 41 per cent were men, statistics that reflect international findings. In the same year, clinical child psychologist Wade F. Horn wrote a report on the work of researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, where it was shown that nearly 20 per cent of low-income women in their study had experienced sexual abuse as children, with family friends constituting the largest group of abusers, followed by uncles and cousins, then stepfathers, and then brothers.

Which is all pretty depressing stuff and, again, must not be used to somehow explain away the Catholic scandal just because evil, exploitation, and abuse is a theme in almost every area of society. What this does show is that those critics who seemed to be so morbidly eager to prove that abuse was all about Catholicism, about Catholic teaching, and about Catholic sexuality were completely wrong and never made a worthy attempt to put the horror in any sort of valuable context. So at its most clinical, we need to describe the abuse crisis that happened within the Church primarily but not exclusively in the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, between 1.5 and 4 per cent of Roman Catholic clergy were involved directly or indirectly in the abuse of young people under their authority. The figure includes those who may not have physically abused anyone but were aware in some way of the abuse and by not stopping it enabled it and allowed the abusers to repeat the offence. Most informed commentators think that the 4 per cent figure is far too high, but we will never know the exact number of victims because not every victim has come forward, for a variety of entirely understandable reasons. Most of the abused were boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen, but younger boys and girls were also molested. Although the term "paedophile priests" was and is commonly used, it is misleading and sometimes appears to be intended to mislead. A crime, of course, is a crime, but if we are to deal with the perpetrators properly and try to stop the crime being repeated, we need to understand its precise nature and stop dealing in tabloid terminology and sensational headlines. Alliteration is no substitution for accuracy.

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

As Gallia Watch explains, the French video above shows "the vigil held in Montpellier on the eve of the first homosexual marriage in France that took place May 29 in that city. Les Veilleurs (those keeping vigil), seated on the ground, and singing L'Espérance (Hope), their anthem, are confronted by the pro-gay crowd, standing, visibly more rowdy and drinking, carrying the multicolored banner of Gay Pride".

It is easy to see the contrast between the beautiful, peaceful hymn sung by the Les Veilleurs, who oppose same-sex marriage, and their composure, and the beer-swilling, shouting, insult-hurling mob of "pro-gay-rights" activists.

"At 2'34" you see two Gay Pride banners. The caption reads: 'Publicity for Gay Pride, paid for with our tax money'."

The video below shows the English Defence League's silent walk of respect for Drummer Lee Rigby, barbarically beheaded by jihadis, in Sheffield, Northern England, on June 8. The United Against Fascism (UAF) mob starts singing nice little songs with pleasant lyrics like "If it wasn't for the coppers you'd be dead". Also notice the rainbow flag of the LGBT movement among the crowd of fascist "anti-fascist" thugs.

A while later, some of the UAF mob activists join Muslims shouting Allahu Akbar to try to put into practice what they had been singing.

As in the case of counterjihadists' or nationalists' demonstrations being attacked by Muslims and Leftist extremists' violence, we have people holding a peaceful vigil to mourn the death of marriage being aggressively confronted by "gay" activists.

Another of the many examples of similarity between Muslim and homosexual activists.

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Another interesting Raymond Ibrahim's article about the way Jihadis were and are helped by the USA and its European allies according to similar patterns in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in the countries of the "Arab Spring" now.

Against the Soviets then, against secular dictators today.

As the Jihadis strengthened by American support in Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, name which not coincidentally means "the base", Western support in Egypt, Lybia and now possibly Syria has helped create not one small base in a relatively unimportant country, but many Jihadi bases in crucial countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And, just as the several-year incubation in Afghanistan prepared 9/11, Ibrahim predicts that the jihadis, much stronger now, are preparing a terror storm of which we have not yet seen the equal. We are witnessing "The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm" (links are in the original article):

On this Memorial Day, it’s important to remember that the very same U.S. policies that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s—leading to the horrific attacks of 9/11—are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11 seem like child’s play.

Once limited to Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, thanks to U.S. policies, has metastasized around the world, and is in the consolidation/training phase for the new jihad.

To understand this dire prediction, we must first examine the United States’ history of empowering Islamic jihadis—only to be attacked by those same jihadis many years later—and the chronic shortsightedness of American policymakers, whose policies are based on their brief tenure, not America’s long-term wellbeing.

In the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels—among them the jihadis—to repel the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning—the first prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.

Al-Qaeda—which tellingly means “the base”—was born.

The U.S. supported al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

But it wasn’t. For over a decade al-Qaeda, unfettered in Afghanistan, trained and plotted. Then came the strikes of 9/11, which were portrayed by the talking heads as a great and unexpected surprise: “What happened? Who knew? Why do they hate us?”

Had al-Qaeda not secured a base of operations, its namesake, 9/11 would not have occurred.

But if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations.

He is doing this by helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis (even if for selfish reasons), while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.

And all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

In Egypt, Obama threw Mubarak, America’s chief Mideast ally for three decades, under the bus, and cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s government is today overrun with Islamists, many who share al-Qaeda’s radical worldview. Several of these new policymakers—including President Morsi himself—were imprisoned under Mubarak, not, as the Western media portray, because they were freedom-loving rebels, but because they were, and are, Sharia-loving radicals trying to transform Egypt into an Islamist state.

The Sinai alone is now infested with jihadis, including possibly al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri.

In Libya, Obama supported the opposition against Gaddafi—knowing full well that al-Qaeda was among them—enabling the Benghazi attack and murder of Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. The unprecedented persecution of Christians in Libya—from attacks on churches to attacks on nuns—is further indicative of the direction “liberated” Libya is taking.

And now in Syria, Obama is, once again, supporting foreign jihadis, who make up 95% of Syria’s so-called “opposition.” As in Libya—and as in Afghanistan in the 80s—foreign jihadis are flooding Syria and terrorizing non-Muslims (a recent fatwa permits the raping of non-Sunni women), in their bid to create another base, another qaeda.

One of them recently declared, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”—precisely al-Qaeda’s thinking in the 80s-90s when it was supported by the U.S. against the U.S.S.R.

Thus all the forces and circumstances that led up to the strikes of 9/11—foreign jihadis infiltrating and consolidating power in Muslim countries formerly run by secular dictators—are once again in full play, but in a much more profound way. Today it’s not just one relatively unimportant country, Afghanistan, that is being subverted by jihadis but several strategically important nations.

If 9/11 was the price the U.S later paid for helping turn Afghanistan into a jihadi base in the 80s-90s, what price will America later pay now that it’s betraying several major nations to the jihadis, who are turning them into bases, into qaedas?

So why are American politicians not blowing the whistle on Obama’s suicidal policies?

Because their myopia and inability to see beyond today—beyond their tenure—has not changed since September 11, 2001. Just as it took over a decade after al-Qaeda’s creation to launch the 9/11 attacks—a time of ostensible peace and calm for the U.S., a time of planning and training for the jihadis—it will take time for the new jihadi storm to pour on America.

And that’s the era we’re currently in: the calm before the storm. Just as before 9/11, today’s American leaders focus only on the moment—a moment when the U.S appears relatively safe—never considering the future or the inevitable consequences of a woefully counterproductive U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking of foreign policy, if Reagan supported the jihadis to combat the U.S.S.R—a hostile super-power—why is Obama supporting the jihadis? What exactly does America have to gain?

At any rate, just as it was before 9/11, when the jihadi storm eventually does break out—and it will, it’s a matter of time—those American politicians who helped empower it, chief among them Obama, will be long gone, and the talking heads will again be stupidly asking “What happened?” “Who knew?” Why do they hate us?”

Monday, 10 June 2013

"What do we want from modern man?" is the headline on the cover of the Style section of The Sunday Times' latest issue.

The man in the cover photo, almost naked, looks androgynous, as if he hadn't quite made up his mind whether to be male or female (a common occurrence these days).

I'll answer that question by taking a cue from The Sunday Times itself, which for years - at least until I stopped reading it in disgust, no, I mean, because it was too riveting and captivating to bear - has been telling us that man is finished, there is really no role or need for him now that we have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), and women work or are on benefits.

It is not just this particular paper, of course, to repeat such a mantra, it is in the air, it's the ethos of our time.

The answer I suggest is the following.

Modern men should all become homosexual or at least bisexual, as our friend Peter Tatchellwrote:

Everyone is potentially bisexual...

Q: What's the difference between heterosexual and homosexual sex? A: A few inches of flesh...

If homosexual desire is this widespread in a homophobic society, imagine how much more common it would be in a gay-positive culture. With the cultural taboos removed, nearly everyone would savour its delights [give or take a few tuberculosis/AIDS co-infections].

With all (modern) men being at least bisexual, which is the great dream of Tatchell and many of his homosexual activist comrades, we can arrive at this solution.

Men will only indulge in the homosexual element of their bisexuality. The semen from these anal or other intercourses, after being tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and found negative, will then be used for artificial insemination or IVF.

So the human species will continue, but women will be free from the oppression of men, as feminists want, and will have full control over their lives - with the help of the Social Security offices - and reproductive potential, without even the need for Planned Parenthood or similar organizations.

Men will serve as semen donors, and at the same time will enjoy freedom from commitment and, as Tatchell, who can be trusted as an expert on the matter, tastefully put it, "savour its [homosexual desire's] delights ".

"A big disappointment" commented the result Adèle Thorens, co-chairman of the Greens. "We did not expect to win, but we did not expect a similar result." That the Greens are disappointed is a measure of how good the changes are, at least in relation to the rest of Europe.

The amendments to the asylum law, approved by parliament at the end of last September, are designed to accelerate the formal procedures, revoke the opportunity to apply for asylum in embassies, and no longer recognize conscientious objection as a reason for obtaining the status of refugee.

On the other hand they allow federal authorities to temporarily convert buildings, mostly military, into asylum seekers shelters, even without the consent of the cantons and the municipalities concerned. And they allow the possibility of opening centres for "problematic" asylum seekers.

The Swiss law on asylum had already gone through a series of progressively-restricting changes, all approved by the people.

It's an easy prediction that, if every country in Western Europe were allowed a referendum on asylum and immigration, the result would be similar. It's also easy to predict that no other country would go down the same route as Switzerland, a nation with historical direct democracy roots, exactly because the result would be similar.

More than three quarters of the Dutch (77 percent) believe that Islam is no enrichment for our country. More than two-thirds – 68 percent – say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands. It is striking that a majority of voters from all political parties (from PVV to VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, SP and 50plus) share this view.

A poll conducted by the research bureau of Maurice de Hond (the Dutch equivalent of Gallup), commissioned by the PVV, among a representative sample of over 1,900 people also shows other striking results:

Saturday, 8 June 2013

The movement of public opinion against Anjem Choudary, the UK Muslim welfare scrounger, sorry, recipient and former solicitor who co-founded the now-banned Islamist organization al-Muhajiroun, has always been great, and has become greater especially after the beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

Research by the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society indicates that, in the 12 years up to al-Muhajiroun’s proscription, about 18 % of all those convicted of Muslim terrorism offences had current or past links with the association.

Now even The Sun newspaper has joined the chorus of disapproval, by forming a panel of experts to investigate Choudary and compile a dossier of evidence which lists all his offences. Its conclusion: he has clearly already broken the law and it's now time to act and arrest him for inciting hatred.

The paper's expert panel includes a legal academic, an MP, a former Flying Squad chief, an Islamic scholar and the father of a 7/7 victim.

Any claimant whose behaviour is ruled to be deeply offensive or harmful to society would be stripped of their handouts under a new law planned by ministers.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s move is aimed at extremists like Choudary — and hate preacher Abu Qatada, who is fighting deportation.

IDS met Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday to plot a joint approach.

Choudary scoops up nearly £26,000 in state giveaways a year — leading to accusations British taxpayers are being forced to fund terrorism.

A source said: “Iain and Theresa have been bothered about the likes of Choudary spewing his bile while taking whatever he wants from the state for some while. But the terrible events in Woolwich have given them fresh impetus to sort out this mess.”

Choudary said murdered soldier Lee Rigby will “burn in hell” and suspect Michael Adebolajo was a “nice man”.

The ex-lawyer, 46, yesterday goaded the police as he boasted of preaching hate without law-breaking.

He taunted top Scotland Yard cop Cressida Dick after she said he uses his legal training to avoid over-stepping the mark.

He wrote on Twitter: “Perhaps she’d be happier if no one knew the law?” But one of his followers was last night charged with inciting terrorism in an online lecture and text.

If you've ever had the great fortune of seeing the entrance to a mosque, you'll have noticed that there are two doors: one, the main, huge, is for men, another, small and lateral, for women (as in the picture below of the East London Mosque).

Apparently we need "right-wing groups" now in England to protest sexism, because the Left totally condones it.

The recently-formed England National Resistance (ENR) felt outraged that the North West Kent Muslim Association’s mosque in Crayford High Street has separate entrances for men and women.

Particularly offensive is the fact that this was once a church, now converted into a mosque. Our society, dominated by atheist and Leftist "progressive" ideologies, is certainly making big strides in its advancement from Christianity to Islam, which this Crayford church-turned-mosque well symbolizes.

And everybody knows, or at least our comrades do, that Islam is more progressive than the religion on which the Western civilization was built (Christianity, for those who may not know).

Having separate entrances for men and women, the former much larger and central to represent the higher standing and greater power that Islam gives to the males of the species, is a good way to walk into the 21st century by harking back to the 7th-century cult of Mohammed.

Here are a few examples of how advanced and enlightened Islam is regarding the equality between sexes, which is why it is defended and supported by all good comrades:

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." Qur'an (2:223)

"And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Qur'an (2:282) In court, the evidence given by a man witness is worth that of two women.

"The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" in children's inheritance. Qur'an (4:11)

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee". Qur'an (33:50) Women are sanctified by Islam to be kept as sex slaves ("those whom thy right hand possesses").

These quotes from the Qur'an are by no means exhaustive of the plethora of recommendations from Allah on how to keep women in a condition of inferiority. But they can be a good introduction.

Let's go back to those reactionaries and retrograde Nehanderthals (they must be, otherwise they would not be "far-right", and if they were not "far-right" they would not be reactionary: perfect Leftist logic, you must agree) of the ENR.

Referring to the mosque in Kent with its separate entrances they said: "To find that fundamental medieval attitude on the streets of Crayford in an ex-Christian church, we were appalled.”

This comment followed complaints on Facebook about the "sexist signs" and the Muslims praying in the street outside the mosque.

So the ENR’s national organiser, Paul Golding, and another member asked the mosque’s imam to remove what the group describes as "sexist and offensive signs" and to cover the Christian cross on the front of the building. According to Golding, the imam agreed to cover the cross but refused to remove the signs.

The ENR, therefore, has started a campaign against the Crayford mosque, which should have included a protest march of 50-100 people through Crayford town centre on Saturday 18 May. The march was cancelled, but the sustained campaign, by leafleting the whole area and staging a series of smaller demonstrations outside the mosque's front door, continues until the place takes down the signs and halts any further segregation of women.

Paul Golding is quite an active chap. As chairman of another organization, Britain First, he has posted on YouTube a video (that you can see above the article) in which he gives London's Metropolitan Police time until the now-expired deadline of 29 May to arrest radical Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun, the banned group which one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade were either members of or linked to - including the two jihadists who beheaded British soldier Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, East London -, and vows to arrest Choudary himself if the Met Police don’t.

You can see my problem in the above video in which Douglas Murray, "radical Muslism cleric" Anjem Choudary and British convert to Islam - representing the "moderate" Muslims - Julie Siddiqi discuss on Channel Four News the Woolwich attack, and in particular the fact that one of the perpetrators, Michael Adebolaj, had been associated to Choudary and participated in at least one of Choudary's protests.

The media and politicians love to use these classifications about Muslims, like "moderate" and "radical"; I follow the custom but in inverted commas.

The serious problem that I have with Murray's intervention in the Channel Four discussion is that he distinguishes between Islam and militant Islam, and says that most Muslims are peaceful and hunky-dory. I'd like to ask him how he knows that, since most polls of Muslims in the UK contradict what he says.

But, even more importantly, by making such distinctions within Islam he confirms, reinforces and perpetuates the myth spread by Western mainstream media, opinion-makers and political leaders about the peaceful nature of Islam. This misconception is exactly the foundation on which all the irrational policies of all Western countries, none excluded, vis-à-vis Islam in foreign and domestic affairs are built.

That is the pillar of all our dhimmitude and eventual Islamization.

For further evidence, here is another video interview of Douglas Murray, this time with the Canadian TV channel Sun News.

The organization of which Murray is now one of the directors, The Henry Jackson Society - he changes them often, I don't know why - , corroborates my suspicions about his wrong stance on Islam.

The Henry Jackson Society seems to be very misguided in its position on Syria and shamefully underplaying the terrible predicament of Syrian Christians at the hands of the "rebels" (read 95% jihadis).

This piece by the Society's Executive Director Alan Mendoza manages in a relatively short space to cram many more fatal errors about Libya, both the Bosnian and Syrian civil wars, and much else than I thought it was humanly possible.

But maybe it was my mistake not to check Murray's credentials before. All I needed to know was that he is a neoconservative.

Monday, 3 June 2013

The Russian TV channel RT is, as usual, doing something right and something wrong, often in the same breath.

Two days ago I saw its broadcast on the anti-Islam backlash in the UK following the brutal beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, East London. In it they mentioned graffiti on mosques, attacks on Muslims and protest marches by the English Defence League (EDL), whose images were shown.

Even in me, despite my distrust for the mainstrean, socio-communist media, they created a subliminal, temporary association between the first two, which are criminal acts, and the third, which is lawful exercise of freedom of expression, moreover amply justified in this case. I recovered from that association almost immediately, by using my critical spirit, but many will have not.

That was followed by an interview with Paul Weston, the chairman of the newly-formed counterjihad party Liberty GB, to which I belong. He rightly said that the EDL should not be called far-right for protesting against such a horrific murder, and then went on to suggest that drastic measures should be taken by the government to eradicate Islamic militancy, for example closing down the mosques that spread radical and violent ideologies (which, I venture to add, are probably many more than we think).

Then I found that RT has a few days ago tackled another big issue related to how Islam "enriches" our cultural environment, namely the Muslim gangs that groom white girls for sexual exploitation.

Maybe something is moving in the right direction here. It only took 20 years after all, from the early 1990s if not before, a jiffy in geological terms! The police, social services and prosecutors, not to mention the politicians, have required two decades, first to recover from the shock of finding out that someone, or rather a lot of people, in the Muslim community were not acting as uprightly as the apologists of the "religion of peace" keep telling us that its followers do; then to master the extreme courage of braving the chance of various epithets, from "far-right" to "racist", being thrown at them; and then finally to find, as in the recently-tried Oxford gang case, a Muslim prosecutor who could do the dirty job for them without risking his career.

All this can be compared to the 20 minutes taken by the police to get to the crime scene in Woolwich. The contact with, or even proximity to, Islam slows down our betters' reflexes.

The Oxfordshire child-sex-trafficking ring was allowed by the authorities' negligence to drug, rape and sell for sex girls aged 11-16 over seven years. Seven gang members, all Muslim, have been found guilty of a string of sex offences just over two weeks ago.

Here is an interesting quote:

The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.

Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse’.

But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality.

We are told that child sex abuse happens ‘in all communities’, that white men are really far more likely to be abusers, as has been shown by the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile case.

One particularly misguided commentary argued that the predators’ religion was an irrelevance, for what really mattered was that most of them worked in the night-time economy as taxi drivers, just as in the Rochdale child sex scandal many of the abusers worked in kebab houses, so they had far more opportunities to target vulnerable girls.

But all this is deluded nonsense. While it is, of course, true that abuse happens in all communities, no amount of obfuscation can hide the pattern that has been exposed in a series of recent chilling scandals, from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby.

In all these incidents, the abusers were Muslim men, and their targets were under-age white girls.

Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population.

To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial.

But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.

Amazingly, the predators seem to have been allowed by local authority managers to come and go from care homes, picking their targets to ply them with drink and drugs before abusing them. You can be sure that if the situation had been reversed, with gangs of tough, young white men preying on vulnerable Muslim girls, the state’s agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.

Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims’.

In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia.

I've quoted him at length due to the exceptionality of a member of the Muslim community in Britain, and an imam at that, being honest enough to admit, and therefore willing to redress, Muslim grooming gangs. Hargey also has the audacity to accuse imams of promoting grooming rings by encouraging followers to think that white women deserve to be “punished”.

Only a week before the Oxford trial, it had been the turn of another gang of "men" (as the media tactfully or, shall we say, cowardly, call them), in this UK epidemic of sex-slave rings run by Muslims, to be convicted in Telford, a town in Shropshire, for sexually abusing schoolgirls in cases stretching over two years.

Writer and journalist Sean Thomas, in his interview with RT in the video above, correctly identifies these as clear cases of racist crimes in which the victims are targeted for being white.

The Mirror newspaper reports that there are now at least 54 active investigations on grooming rings in Britain. Steve Heywood, chief constable at Greater Manchester, said that child exploitation was now the force’s “number one priority”.

Out of the 43 police divisions in England and Wales, at least a whopping 31 have ongoing investigations into these crimes. The other 12 did not respond to the paper's request for information. Of the 43 that did, 3 refused to tell The Mirror how many investigations they had. So, 54 is the number of probes disclosed to the paper, but their number is likely to be higher.

Last week another trial involved 10 "men" with names like Mohammed Adnan, Mudassar Hussain, Rameez Ali and Ammar Rafiq, accused of abusing and exploiting a girl in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, over a four-year period.

In April, probably Britain’s biggest child-sex ring, with the highest number of victims by one gang, 50 (the youngest of whom was 12), was discovered by the police. The suspects, six men "of various nationalities", were arrested in Peterborough, near Cambridge.

In March, 7 men were charged in Newham, East London, on a range of offences against a 14-year-old girl, including rape and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

And last year 5 men were charged with rape in Stockport, Greater Manchester, after an investigation showed they had 39 potential victims.

Sean Thomas in the video interview above sums up the grisly situation in its numeric terms: "Fifty-four gangs is an astonishing figure. Each gang may have dozens or hundreds of victims, so we're talking about possibly thousands and thousands of white girls who have been abused, raped and even murdered in the last 20 years, because this crime has been ignored. It's shocking".

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

About Me

Philosophy graduate, journalist, website creator and
blogger born in Italy and living in London. I have been London correspondent for Italian media, including Panorama, L'Espresso, La
Repubblica. I translated Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation into Italian.